Antimicrobial resistance of Streptococcus pneumoniae from invasive pneumococcal diseases in Latin American countries: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background: Invasive pneumococcal disease has declined since pneumococcal conjugate vaccine introduction in Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC). However, serotype distribution and antimicrobial resistance patterns have changed. Methods: We conducted a systematic review to evaluate the frequency of antimicrobial resistance of Streptococcus pneumoniae from invasive disease in LAC. Articles published between 1 January 2000, and 27 December 2022, with no language restriction, were searched in major databases and gray literature. Pairs of reviewers independently selected extracted data and assessed the risk of bias in the studies. The quality of antimicrobial resistance (AMR) studies was evaluated according to WHO recommendations (PROSPERO CRD42023392097). Results: From 8,600 records identified, 103 studies were included, with 49,660 positive samples of S. pneumoniae for AMR analysis processed. Most studies were from Brazil (29.1%) and Argentina (18.4%), were cross-sectional (57.3%), reported data on AMR from IPD cases (52.4%), and were classified as moderate risk of bias (50.5%). Resistance to penicillin was 21.7% (95%IC 18.7-25.0, I2: 95.9), and for ceftriaxone/cefotaxime it was 4.7% (95%IC 3.2-6.9, I2: 96.1). The highest resistance for both penicillin and ceftriaxone/cefotaxime was in the age group of 0 to 5 years (32.1% [95%IC 28.2-36.4, I2: 87.7], and 9.7% [95%IC 5.9-15.6, I2: 96.9] respectively). The most frequent serotypes associated with resistance were 14 for penicillin and 19A for ceftriaxone/cefotaxime. Conclusion: Approximately one-quarter of invasive pneumococcal disease isolates in Latin America and the Caribbean displayed penicillin resistance, with higher rates in young children. Ongoing surveillance is essential to monitor serotype evolution and antimicrobial resistance patterns following pneumococcal conjugate vaccine introduction.

Progestogens for prevention of luteinising hormone (LH) surge in women undergoing controlled ovarian hyperstimulation as part of an assisted reproductive technology (ART) cycle.

BACKGROUND: Currently, gonadotrophin releasing hormone (GnRH) analogues are used to prevent premature ovulation in ART cycles. However, their costs remain high, the route of administration is invasive and has some adverse effects. Oral progestogens could be cheaper and effective to prevent a premature LH surge. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of using progestogens to avoid spontaneous ovulation in women undergoing controlled ovarian hyperstimulation (COH). SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group trials register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and PsycINFO in Dec 2021. We contacted study authors and experts to identify additional studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that included progestogens for ovulation inhibition in women undergoing controlled ovarian hyperstimulation (COH). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures recommended by Cochrane, including the risk of bias (RoB) assessment. The primary review outcomes were live birth rate (LBR) and oocyte pick-up cancellation rate (OPCR). Secondary outcomes were clinical pregnancy rate (CPR), cumulative pregnancy, miscarriage rate (MR), multiple pregnancies, LH surge, total and MII oocytes, days of stimulation, dose of gonadotropins, and moderate/severe ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) rate. The primary analyses were restricted to studies at overall low and some concerns RoB, and sensitivity analysis included all studies. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of evidence. MAIN RESULTS: We included 14 RCTs (2643 subfertile women undergoing ART, 47 women used oocyte freezing for fertility preservation and 534 oocyte donors). Progestogens versus GnRH antagonists We are very uncertain of the effect of medroxyprogesterone acetate (MPA) 10 mg compared with cetrorelix on the LBR in poor responders (odds ratio (OR) 1.25, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.73 to 2.13, one RCT, N = 340, very-low-certainty evidence), suggesting that if the chance of live birth following GnRH antagonists is assumed to be 18%, the chance following MPA would be 14% to 32%. There may be little or no difference in OPCR between progestogens and GnRH antagonists, but due to wide Cs (CIs), we are uncertain (OR 0.92, 95%CI 0.42 to 2.01, 3 RCTs, N = 648, I² = 0%, low-certainty evidence), changing the chance of OPCR from 4% with progestogens to 2% to 8%. Given the imprecision found, no conclusions can be retrieved on CPR and MR. Low-quality evidence suggested that using micronised progesterone in normo-responders may increase by 2 to 6 the MII oocytes in comparison to GnRH antagonists. There may be little or no differences in gonadotropin doses. Progestogens versus GnRH agonists Results were uncertain for all outcomes comparing progestogens with GnRH agonists. One progestogen versus another progestogen The analyses comparing one progestogen versus another progestogen for LBR did not meet our criteria for primary analyses. The OPCR was probably lower in the MPA 10 mg in comparison to MPA 4 mg (OR 2.27, 95%CI 0.90 to 5.74, one RCT, N = 300, moderate-certainty evidence), and MPA 4 mg may be lower than micronised progesterone 100 mg, but due to wide CI, we are uncertain of the effect (OR 0.81, 95%CI 0.43 to 1.53, one RCT, N = 300, low-certainty evidence), changing the chance of OPCR from 5% with MPA 4 mg to 5% to22%, and from 17% with micronised progesterone 100 mg to 8% to 24%. When comparing dydrogesterone 20 mg to MPA, the OPCR is probably lower in the dydrogesterone group in comparison to MPA 10 mg (OR 1.49, 95%CI 0.80 to 2.80, one RCT, N = 520, moderate-certainty evidence), and it may be lower in dydrogesterone group in comparison to MPA 4 mg but due to wide confidence interval, we are uncertain of the effect (OR 1.19, 95%CI 0.61 to 2.34, one RCT, N = 300, low-certainty evidence), changing the chance of OPCR from 7% with dydrogesterone 20 to 6-17%, and in MPA 4 mg from 12% to 8% to 24%. When comparing dydrogesterone 20 mg to micronised progesterone 100 mg, the OPCR is probably lower in the dydrogesterone group (OR 1.54, 95%CI 0.94 to 2.52, two RCTs, N=550, I² = 0%, moderate-certainty evidence), changing OPCR from 11% with dydrogesterone to 10% to 24%. We are very uncertain of the effect in normo-responders of micronised progesterone 100 mg compared with micronised progesterone 200 mg on the OPCR (OR 0.35, 95%CI 0.09 to 1.37, one RCT, N = 150, very-low-certainty evidence). There is probably little or no difference in CPR and MR between MPA 10 mg and dydrogesterone 20 mg. There may be little or no differences in MII oocytes and gonadotropins doses. No cases of moderate/severe OHSS were reported in most of the groups in any of the comparisons. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Little or no differences in LBR may exist when comparing MPA 4 mg with GnRH agonists in normo-responders. OPCR may be slightly increased in the MPA 4 mg group, but MPA 4 mg reduces the doses of gonadotropins in comparison to GnRH agonists. Little or no differences in OPCR may exist between progestogens and GnRH antagonists in normo-responders and donors. However, micronised progesterone could improve by 2 to 6 MII oocytes. When comparing one progestogen to another, dydrogesterone suggested slightly lower OPCR than MPA and micronised progesterone, and MPA suggested slightly lower OPCR than the micronised progesterone 100 mg. Finally, MPA 10 mg suggests a lower OPCR than MPA 4 mg. There is uncertainty regarding the rest of the outcomes due to imprecision and no solid conclusions can be drawn.

Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Deaths Attributable to Antimicrobial Resistance, Latin America.

Antimicrobial resistance is a pressing global health concern, leading to 4.95 million deaths in 2019. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the lethality attributed to infections caused by multidrug-resistant organisms (MDROs) in Latin America and the Caribbean. A comprehensive search of major databases retrieved relevant studies from 2000-2022. We included 54 observational studies, primarily from Brazil, Argentina, and Colombia. The most commonly studied organism was methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. The overall unadjusted case fatality rate related to MDROs was 45.0%; higher adjusted lethality was observed in persons infected with MDROs than in those infected with other pathogens (adjusted odds ratio 1.93, 95% CI 1.58-2.37). A higher lethality rate was seen in patients who did not receive appropriate empirical treatment (odds ratio 2.27, 95% CI 1.44-3.56). These findings underscore the increased lethality associated with antimicrobial resistance in Latin America and the Caribbean.

What does our region need in order to strengthen public policies on sugar-sweetened beverages? decision-makers' dialogue. / ¿Qué necesita nuestra región para fortalecer políticas públicas sobre bebidas azucaradas? diálogo de decisores.

In order to prioritize public policies to reduce the consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages in Argentina, Brazil, El Salvador and Trinidad and Tobago and to identify information gaps related to the burden of disease attributable to their consumption, a policy dialogue was held with government members, civil society organizations, researchers and communicators from Latin American and Caribbean countries. Presentations and deliberative workshops were conducted using semi-structured data collection tools and group discussions. The prioritized interventions were tax increases, front labeling, restriction of advertising, promotion and sponsorship, and modifications regarding the school environment. The main perceived barrier was the interference from the food industry. This dialogue among decision-makers led to the identification of priority public policies to reduce the consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages in the region.

Con el objetivo de priorizar políticas públicas para disminuir el consumo de bebidas azucaradas en Argentina, Brasil, El Salvador y Trinidad y Tobago e identificar las necesidades de información relacionadas con la carga de enfermedad atribuible a su consumo se realizó un diálogo de políticas en el que participaron miembros de gobierno, organizaciones de la sociedad civil, investigadores y comunicadores de países de Latinoamérica y el Caribe. Se llevaron a cabo exposiciones y talleres deliberativos utilizándose herramientas de recolección de datos semiestructuradas y discusiones grupales facilitadas. Las intervenciones priorizadas fueron el incremento de impuestos, el etiquetado frontal, la restricción de la publicidad, promoción y patrocinio y las modificaciones del entorno escolar. La principal barrera percibida fue la interferencia de la industria alimentaria. La realización de este diálogo de decisores permitió la identificación de las políticas públicas prioritarias para disminuir el consumo de bebidas azucaradas en la región.

Burden of Disease of Gonorrhoea in Latin America: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Neisseria gonorrhoeae causes gonorrhoea, a globally neglected but increasing disease. This systematic review and meta-analysis reviewed the epidemiology and economic burden of gonorrhoea in Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC). METHODS: We searched PubMed, EMBase, Cochrane Library, EconLIT, CINAHL, CRD, LILACS, Global Health, Global Dissertations and Theses, SciELO, Web of Science databases, countries' ministries of health, and the IHME's Global Burden of Disease databases. Studies published in the last 10 years (20 years for economic studies) were included if conducted in any LAC country, without language restrictions. The main outcome measures were incidence/prevalence, proportion of co-infections, case fatality rates, specific mortality/hospitalisation rates, direct/indirect costs, and impact of gonorrhoea on quality of life. To assess evidence quality, we used a checklist developed by the US National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute for observational studies and trial control arms, the Cochrane Effective Practice Organization of Care Group tool for randomised controlled trials, and the CICERO checklist for economic studies. RESULTS: We identified 1290 articles; 115 included epidemiological studies and one included an economic study. Ministry of health data from Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Mexico, and Uruguay were identified. Gonorrhoea prevalence was 1.46% (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.00-2.00%) from 48 studies and 5.68% (95% CI 4.23-7.32%) from 58 studies for non-high-risk and high-risk populations, respectively. Cumulative incidence for the high-risk population was 2.05 cases per 100 persons/year. Few published studies were rated as "good" in the risk of bias assessments. Variations in the methodology of the sources and limited information found in the countries' surveillance systems hinder the comparison of data. CONCLUSION: The burden of gonorrhoea in LAC is not negligible. Our results provide public health and clinical decision support to assess potential interventions to prevent gonorrhoea. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The protocol is registered on PROSPERO (CRD42021253342). The study was funded by GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA (GSK study identifier VEO-000025).

Antimicrobial resistance of Neisseria gonorrhoeae in Latin American countries: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Detailed information is needed on the dynamic pattern of antimicrobial resistance (AMR) in Neisseria gonorrhoeae in Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC). OBJECTIVES: To conduct a systematic review of AMR in N. gonorrhoeae in LAC. METHODS: Electronic searches without language restrictions were conducted in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, EconLIT, Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, and Latin American and Caribbean Literature in Health Sciences. Studies were eligible if published between 1 January 2011 and 13 February 2021, conducted in any LAC country (regardless of age, sex and population) and measured frequency and/or patterns of AMR to any antimicrobial in N. gonorrhoeae. The WHO Global Gonococcal Antimicrobial Surveillance Programme (WHO-GASP) for LAC countries and Latin American AMR SurveillanceNetwork databases were searched. AMR study quality was evaluated according to WHO recommendations. RESULTS: AMR data for 38, 417 isolates collected in 1990-2018 were included from 31 publications, reporting data from Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, Peru, Uruguay, Venezuela and WHO-GASP. Resistance to extended-spectrum cephalosporins was infrequent (0.09%-8.5%). Resistance to azithromycin was up to 32% in the published studies and up to 61% in WHO-GASP. Resistance to penicillin, tetracycline and ciprofloxacin was high (17.6%-98%, 20.7%-90% and 5.9%-89%, respectively). Resistance to gentamicin was not reported, and resistance to spectinomycin was reported in one study. CONCLUSIONS: This review provides data on resistance to azithromycin, potentially important given its use as first-line empirical treatment, and indicates the need for improved surveillance of gonococcal AMR in LAC. Trial registration: Registered in PROSPERO, CRD42021253342.

Safety of COVID-19 vaccines during pregnancy: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Assessment of COVID-19 vaccines safety during pregnancy is urgently needed. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the safety of COVID-19 vaccines, including their components and technological platforms used in other vaccines during pregnancy and animal studies to complement direct evidence. We searched literature databases from its inception to September 2021 without language restriction, COVID-19 vaccine websites, and reference lists of other systematic reviews and the included studies. Pairs of reviewers independently selected, data extracted, and assessed the risk of bias of the studies. Discrepancies were resolved by consensus. (PROSPERO CRD42021234185). RESULTS: We retrieved 8,837 records from the literature search; 71 studies were included, involving 17,719,495 pregnant persons and 389 pregnant animals. Most studies (94%) were conducted in high-income countries, were cohort studies (51%), and 15% were classified as high risk of bias. We identified nine COVID-19 vaccine studies, seven involving 309,164 pregnant persons, mostly exposed to mRNA vaccines. Among non-COVID-19 vaccines, the most frequent exposures were AS03 and aluminum-based adjuvants. A meta-analysis of studies that adjusted for potential confounders showed no association with adverse outcomes, regardless of the vaccine or the trimester of vaccination. Neither the reported rates of adverse pregnancy outcomes nor reactogenicity exceeded expected background rates, which was the case for ASO3- or aluminum-adjuvanted non-COVID-19 vaccines in the proportion meta-analyses of uncontrolled studies/arms. The only exception was postpartum hemorrhage after COVID-19 vaccination (10.40%; 95% CI: 6.49-15.10%), reported by two studies; however, the comparison with non-exposed pregnant persons, available for one study, found non-statistically significant differences (adjusted OR 1.09; 95% CI 0.56-2.12). Animal studies showed consistent results with studies in pregnant persons. CONCLUSION: We found no safety concerns for currently administered COVID-19 vaccines during pregnancy. Additional experimental and real-world evidence could enhance vaccination coverage. Robust safety data for non-mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines are still needed.

Safety, immunogenicity, and effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines for pregnant persons: A protocol for systematic review and meta analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Numerous vaccines have been evaluated and approved for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Since pregnant persons have been excluded from most clinical trials of COVID-19 vaccines, sufficient data regarding the safety of these vaccines for the pregnant person and their fetus have rarely been available at the time of product licensure. However, as COVID-19 vaccines have been deployed, data on the safety, reactogenicity, immunogenicity, and efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines for pregnant persons and neonates are becoming increasingly available. A living systematic review and meta-analysis of the safety and effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines for pregnant persons and newborns could provide the information necessary to help guide vaccine policy decisions. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We aim to conduct a living systematic review and meta-analysis based on biweekly searches of medical databases (e.g., MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL) and clinical trial registries to systematically identify relevant studies of COVID-19 vaccines for pregnant persons. Pairs of reviewers will independently select, extract data, and conduct risk of bias assessments. We will include randomized clinical trials, quasi-experimental studies, cohort, case-control, cross-sectional studies, and case reports. Primary outcomes will be the safety, efficacy, and effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines in pregnant persons, including neonatal outcomes. Secondary outcomes will be immunogenicity and reactogenicity. We will conduct paired meta-analyses, including prespecified subgroup and sensitivity analyses. We will use the grading of recommendations assessment, development, and evaluation approach to evaluate the certainty of evidence.

¿Qué necesita nuestra región para fortalecer políticas públicas sobre bebidas azucaradas? diálogo de decisores / What does our region need in order to strengthen public policies on sugar-sweetened beverages? decision-makers' dialogue

Con el objetivo de priorizar políticas públicas para disminuir el consumo de bebidas azucaradas en Argentina, Brasil, El Salvador y Trinidad y Tobago e identificar las necesidades de información relacionadas con la carga de enfermedad atribuible a su consumo se realizó un diálogo de políticas en el que participaron miembros de gobierno, organizaciones de la sociedad civil, investigadores y comunicadores de países de Latinoamérica y el Caribe. Se llevaron a cabo exposiciones y talleres deliberativos utilizándose herramientas de recolección de datos semiestructuradas y discusiones grupales facilitadas. Las intervenciones priorizadas fueron el incremento de impuestos, el etiquetado frontal, la restricción de la publicidad, promoción y patrocinio y las modificaciones del entorno escolar. La principal barrera percibida fue la interferencia de la industria alimentaria. La realización de este diálogo de decisores permitió la identificación de las políticas públicas prioritarias para disminuir el consumo de bebidas azucaradas en la región.

In order to prioritize public policies to reduce the consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages in Argentina, Brazil, El Salvador and Trinidad and Tobago and to identify information gaps related to the burden of disease attributable to their consumption, a policy dialogue was held with government members, civil society organizations, researchers and communicators from Latin American and Caribbean countries. Presentations and deliberative workshops were conducted using semi-structured data collection tools and group discussions. The prioritized interventions were tax increases, front labeling, restriction of advertising, promotion and sponsorship, and modifications regarding the school environment. The main perceived barrier was the interference from the food industry. This dialogue among decision-makers led to the identification of priority public policies to reduce the consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages in the region.

Direct evidence gap on fixed versus adjusted-dose benznidazole for adults with chronic Chagas disease without cardiomyopathy: Systematic review and individual patient data meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the comparative efficacy and safety of a fixed dose of benznidazole (BZN) with an adjusted-dose for Trypanosoma cruzi-seropositive adults without cardiomyopathy. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review and individual participant data (IPD) meta-analysis following Cochrane methods, and the PRISMA-IPD statement for reporting. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) allocating participants to fixed or adjusted doses of BZN for T. cruzi-seropositive adults without cardiomyopathy were included. We searched (December 2021) Cochrane, MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS and trial registries and contacted Chagas experts. Selection, data extraction, risk of bias assessment using the Cochrane tool, and a GRADE summary of finding tables were performed independently by pairs of reviewers. We conducted a random-effects IPD meta-analysis using the one-stage strategy, or, if that was impossible, the two-stage strategy. RESULTS: Five RCTs (1198 patients) were included, none directly comparing fixed with adjusted doses of BZN. Compared to placebo, BZN therapy was strongly associated with negative qPCR and sustainable parasitological clearance regardless of the type of dose and subgroup analysed. For negative qPCR, the fixed/adjusted rate of odds ratios (RORF/A ) was 8.83 (95% CI 1.02-76.48); for sustained parasitological clearance, it was 4.60 (95% CI 0.40-52.51), probably indicating at least non-inferior effect of fixed doses, with no statistically significant interactions by scheme for global and most subgroup estimations. The RORF/A for treatment interruption due to adverse events was 0.44 (95% CI 0.14-1.38), probably indicating no worse tolerance of fixed doses. CONCLUSIONS: We found no direct comparison between fixed and adjusted doses of BZN. However, fixed doses versus placebo are probably not inferior to weight-adjusted doses of BZN versus placebo in terms of parasitological efficacy and safety. Network IPD meta-analysis, through indirect comparisons, may well provide the best possible answers in the near future. REGISTRATION: The study protocol was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42019120905).

Economic burden of herpes zoster in Latin America: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

This systematic review describes herpes zoster (HZ) economic burden in terms of healthcare resource use and cost outcomes in the Latin America and Caribbean (LAC) region. We searched online databases from 1 January 2000 to 20 February 2020 to identify eligible publications. We identified 23 publications that reported direct costs, indirect costs, and resources associated with HZ and its complications. The primary direct medical resources reported in the different studies were visits to doctors, transportation, days in the hospital, nursing, medication schedules, and physical therapy. Direct total costs per patient ranged from $99.99 to $4177.91. The highest cost was found in Brazil. Direct costs are, in average, 81.39% higher than indirect costs. The cost per patient that includes postherpetic neuralgia treatment is 115% higher on average for the directs and 73% for the indirect costs. Brazil reported a higher total cost per patient than Argentina and Mexico, while for indirect costs per patient, Brazil and Argentina had higher costs than Mexico, respectively. A meta-analysis on the number of days due to HZ hospitalization, performed on non-immunosuppressed patients over 65 years of age from three studies, resulted in a cumulative measure of 4.5 days of hospitalization. In the LAC region, the economic burden of HZ and associated complications is high, particularly among high-risk populations and older age groups. Preventative strategies such as vaccination could help avoid or reduce the HZ-associated disease economic burden in the LAC region.

Timing of kidney replacement therapy initiation for acute kidney injury.

BACKGROUND: Acute kidney injury (AKI) is a common condition among patients in intensive care units (ICUs) and is associated with high numbers of deaths. Kidney replacement therapy (KRT) is a blood purification technique used to treat the most severe forms of AKI. The optimal time to initiate KRT so as to improve clinical outcomes remains uncertain. This is an update of a review first published in 2018. This review complements another Cochrane review by the same authors: Intensity of continuous renal replacement therapy for acute kidney injury. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of different timing (early and standard) of KRT initiation on death and recovery of kidney function in critically ill patients with AKI. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant's Specialised Register to 4 August 2022 through contact with the Information Specialist using search terms relevant to this review. Studies in the Register are identified through searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, conference proceedings, the International Clinical Trials Register, ClinicalTrials and LILACS to 1 August 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs). We included all patients with AKI in the ICU regardless of age, comparing early versus standard KRT initiation. For safety and cost outcomes, we planned to include cohort studies and non-RCTs. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data were extracted independently by two authors. The random-effects model was used, and results were reported as risk ratios(RR) for dichotomous outcomes and mean difference(MD) for continuous outcomes, with 95% confidence intervals (CI). MAIN RESULTS: We included 12 studies enrolling 4880 participants. Overall, most domains were assessed as being at low or unclear risk of bias. Compared to standard treatment, early KRT initiation may have little to no difference on the risk of death at day 30 (12 studies, 4826 participants: RR 0.97,95% CI 0.87 to 1.09; I²= 29%; low certainty evidence), and death after 30 days (7 studies, 4534 participants: RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.07; I² = 6%; moderate certainty evidence). Early KRT initiation may make little or no difference to the risk of death or non-recovery of kidney function at 90 days (6 studies, 4011 participants: RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.11; I² = 66%; low certainty evidence); CIs included both benefits and harms. Low certainty evidence showed early KRT initiation may make little or no difference to the number of patients who were free from KRT (10 studies, 4717 participants: RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.94 to1.22; I² = 55%) and recovery of kidney function among survivors who were free from KRT after day 30 (10 studies, 2510 participants: RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.07; I² = 69%) compared to standard treatment. High certainty evidence showed early KRT initiation increased the risk of hypophosphataemia (1 study, 2927 participants: RR 1.80, 95% CI 1.33 to 2.44), hypotension (5 studies, 3864 participants: RR 1.54, 95% CI 1.29 to 1.85; I² = 0%), cardiac-rhythm disorder (6 studies, 4483 participants: RR 1.35, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.75; I² = 16%), and infection (5 studies, 4252 participants: RR 1.33, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.77; I² = 0%); however, it is uncertain whether early KRT initiation increases or reduces the number of patients who experienced any adverse events (5 studies, 3983 participants: RR 1.23, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.68; I² = 91%; very low certainty evidence). Moderate certainty evidence showed early KRT initiation probably reduces the number of days in hospital (7 studies, 4589 participants: MD-2.45 days, 95% CI -4.75 to -0.14; I² = 10%) and length of stay in ICU (5 studies, 4240 participants: MD -1.01 days, 95% CI -1.60 to -0.42; I² = 0%). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Based on mainly low to moderate certainty of the evidence, early KRT has no beneficial effect on death and may increase the recovery of kidney function. Earlier KRT probably reduces the length of ICU and hospital stay but increases the risk of adverse events. Further adequate-powered RCTs using robust and validated tools that complement clinical judgement are needed to define the optimal time of KRT in critical patients with AKI in order to improve their outcomes. The surgical AKI population should be considered in future research.

Occurrence and transmission potential of asymptomatic and presymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infections: Update of a living systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Debate about the level of asymptomatic Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection continues. The amount of evidence is increasing and study designs have changed over time. We updated a living systematic review to address 3 questions: (1) Among people who become infected with SARS-CoV-2, what proportion does not experience symptoms at all during their infection? (2) What is the infectiousness of asymptomatic and presymptomatic, compared with symptomatic, SARS-CoV-2 infection? (3) What proportion of SARS-CoV-2 transmission in a population is accounted for by people who are asymptomatic or presymptomatic? METHODS AND FINDINGS: The protocol was first published on 1 April 2020 and last updated on 18 June 2021. We searched PubMed, Embase, bioRxiv, and medRxiv, aggregated in a database of SARS-CoV-2 literature, most recently on 6 July 2021. Studies of people with PCR-diagnosed SARS-CoV-2, which documented symptom status at the beginning and end of follow-up, or mathematical modelling studies were included. Studies restricted to people already diagnosed, of single individuals or families, or without sufficient follow-up were excluded. One reviewer extracted data and a second verified the extraction, with disagreement resolved by discussion or a third reviewer. Risk of bias in empirical studies was assessed with a bespoke checklist and modelling studies with a published checklist. All data syntheses were done using random effects models. Review question (1): We included 130 studies. Heterogeneity was high so we did not estimate a mean proportion of asymptomatic infections overall (interquartile range (IQR) 14% to 50%, prediction interval 2% to 90%), or in 84 studies based on screening of defined populations (IQR 20% to 65%, prediction interval 4% to 94%). In 46 studies based on contact or outbreak investigations, the summary proportion asymptomatic was 19% (95% confidence interval (CI) 15% to 25%, prediction interval 2% to 70%). (2) The secondary attack rate in contacts of people with asymptomatic infection compared with symptomatic infection was 0.32 (95% CI 0.16 to 0.64, prediction interval 0.11 to 0.95, 8 studies). (3) In 13 modelling studies fit to data, the proportion of all SARS-CoV-2 transmission from presymptomatic individuals was higher than from asymptomatic individuals. Limitations of the evidence include high heterogeneity and high risks of selection and information bias in studies that were not designed to measure persistently asymptomatic infection, and limited information about variants of concern or in people who have been vaccinated. CONCLUSIONS: Based on studies published up to July 2021, most SARS-CoV-2 infections were not persistently asymptomatic, and asymptomatic infections were less infectious than symptomatic infections. Summary estimates from meta-analysis may be misleading when variability between studies is extreme and prediction intervals should be presented. Future studies should determine the asymptomatic proportion of SARS-CoV-2 infections caused by variants of concern and in people with immunity following vaccination or previous infection. Without prospective longitudinal studies with methods that minimise selection and measurement biases, further updates with the study types included in this living systematic review are unlikely to be able to provide a reliable summary estimate of the proportion of asymptomatic infections caused by SARS-CoV-2. REVIEW PROTOCOL: Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/9ewys/).

Cleavage-stage versus blastocyst-stage embryo transfer in assisted reproductive technology.

BACKGROUND: Advances in embryo culture media have led to a shift in in vitro fertilisation (IVF) practice from cleavage-stage embryo transfer to blastocyst-stage embryo transfer. The rationale for blastocyst-stage transfer is to improve both uterine and embryonic synchronicity and enable self selection of viable embryos, thus resulting in better live birth rates. OBJECTIVES: To determine whether blastocyst-stage (day 5 to 6) embryo transfer improves the live birth rate (LBR) per fresh transfer, and other associated outcomes, compared with cleavage-stage (day 2 to 3) embryo transfer. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group Specialised Register of controlled trials, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, and CINAHL, from inception to October 2021. We also searched registers of ongoing trials and the reference lists of studies retrieved. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) which compared the effectiveness of IVF with blastocyst-stage embryo transfer versus IVF with cleavage-stage embryo transfer. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures recommended by Cochrane. Our primary outcomes were LBR per fresh transfer and cumulative clinical pregnancy rates (cCPR). Secondary outcomes were clinical pregnancy rate (CPR), multiple pregnancy, high-order multiple pregnancy, miscarriage (all following first embryo transfer), failure to transfer embryos, and whether supernumerary embryos were frozen for transfer at a later date (frozen-thawed embryo transfer). We assessed the overall quality of the evidence for the main comparisons using GRADE methods. MAIN RESULTS: We included 32 RCTs (5821 couples or women). The live birth rate following fresh transfer was higher in the blastocyst-stage transfer group (odds ratio (OR) 1.27, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.06 to 1.51; I2 = 53%; 15 studies, 2219 women; low-quality evidence). This suggests that if 31% of women achieve live birth after fresh cleavage-stage transfer, between 32% and 41% would do so after fresh blastocyst-stage transfer. We are uncertain whether blastocyst-stage transfer improves the cCPR. A post hoc analysis showed that vitrification could increase the cCPR. This is an interesting finding that warrants further investigation when more studies using vitrification are published. The CPR was also higher in the blastocyst-stage transfer group, following fresh transfer (OR 1.25, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.39; I2 = 51%; 32 studies, 5821 women; moderate-quality evidence). This suggests that if 39% of women achieve a clinical pregnancy after fresh cleavage-stage transfer, between 42% and 47% will probably do so after fresh blastocyst-stage transfer. We are uncertain whether blastocyst-stage transfer increases multiple pregnancy (OR 1.05, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.33; I2 = 30%; 19 studies, 3019 women; low-quality evidence) or miscarriage rates (OR 1.12, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.38; I2 = 24%; 22 studies, 4208 women; low-quality evidence). This suggests that if 9% of women have a multiple pregnancy after fresh cleavage-stage transfer, between 8% and 12% would do so after fresh blastocyst-stage transfer. However, a sensitivity analysis restricted only to studies with low or 'some concerns' for risk of bias, in the subgroup of equal number of embryos transferred, showed that blastocyst transfer probably increases the multiple pregnancy rate. Embryo freezing rates (when there are frozen supernumerary embryos for transfer at a later date) were lower in the blastocyst-stage transfer group (OR 0.48, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.57; I2 = 84%; 14 studies, 2292 women; low-quality evidence). This suggests that if 60% of women have embryos frozen after cleavage-stage transfer, between 37% and 46% would do so after blastocyst-stage transfer. Failure to transfer any embryos was higher in the blastocyst transfer group (OR 2.50, 95% CI 1.76 to 3.55; I2 = 36%; 17 studies, 2577 women; moderate-quality evidence). This suggests that if 1% of women have no embryos transferred in planned fresh cleavage-stage transfer, between 2% and 4% probably have no embryos transferred in planned fresh blastocyst-stage transfer. The evidence was of low quality for most outcomes. The main limitations were serious imprecision and serious risk of bias, associated with failure to describe acceptable methods of randomisation. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is low-quality evidence for live birth and moderate-quality evidence for clinical pregnancy that fresh blastocyst-stage transfer is associated with higher rates of both than fresh cleavage-stage transfer. We are uncertain whether blastocyst-stage transfer improves the cCPR derived from fresh and frozen-thawed cycles following a single oocyte retrieval. Although there is a benefit favouring blastocyst-stage transfer in fresh cycles, more evidence is needed to know whether the stage of transfer impacts on cumulative live birth and pregnancy rates. Future RCTs should report rates of live birth, cumulative live birth, and miscarriage. They should also evaluate women with a poor prognosis to enable those undergoing assisted reproductive technology (ART) and service providers to make well-informed decisions on the best treatment option available.

Calcium supplementation for prevention of primary hypertension.

BACKGROUND: Hypertension is a major public health problem that increases the risk of cardiovascular and kidney diseases. Several studies have shown an inverse association between calcium intake and blood pressure, as small reductions in blood pressure have been shown to produce rapid reductions in vascular disease risk even in individuals with normal blood pressure ranges. This is the first update of the review to evaluate the effect of calcium supplementation in normotensive individuals as a preventive health measure. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and safety of calcium supplementation versus placebo or control for reducing blood pressure in normotensive people and for the prevention of primary hypertension. SEARCH METHODS: The Cochrane Hypertension Information Specialist searched the following databases for randomised controlled trials up to September 2020: the Cochrane Hypertension Specialised Register, CENTRAL (2020, Issue 9), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and the US National Institutes of Health Ongoing Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov. We also contacted authors of relevant papers regarding further published and unpublished work. The searches had no language restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: We selected trials that randomised normotensive people to dietary calcium interventions such as supplementation or food fortification versus placebo or control. We excluded quasi-random designs. The primary outcomes were hypertension (defined as blood pressure ≥ 140/90 mmHg) and blood pressure measures. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected trials for inclusion, abstracted the data and assessed the risks of bias. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of evidence. MAIN RESULTS: The 2020 updated search identified four new trials. We included a total of 20 trials with 3512 participants, however we only included 18 for the meta-analysis with 3140 participants. None of the studies reported hypertension as a dichotomous outcome. The effect on systolic and diastolic blood pressure was: mean difference (MD) -1.37 mmHg, 95% confidence interval (CI) -2.08, -0.66; 3140 participants; 18 studies; I2 = 0%, high-certainty evidence; and MD -1.45, 95% CI -2.23, -0.67; 3039 participants; 17 studies; I2 = 45%, high-certainty evidence, respectively. The effect on systolic and diastolic blood pressure for those younger than 35 years was: MD -1.86, 95% CI -3.45, -0.27; 452 participants; eight studies; I2 = 19%, moderate-certainty evidence; MD -2.50, 95% CI -4.22, -0.79; 351 participants; seven studies ; I2 = 54%, moderate-certainty evidence, respectively. The effect on systolic and diastolic blood pressure for those 35 years or older was: MD -0.97, 95% CI -1.83, -0.10; 2688 participants; 10 studies; I2 = 0%, high-certainty evidence; MD -0.59, 95% CI -1.13, -0.06; 2688 participants; 10 studies; I2 = 0%, high-certainty evidence, respectively. The effect on systolic and diastolic blood pressure for women was: MD -1.25, 95% CI -2.53, 0.03; 1915 participants; eight studies; I2 = 0%, high-certainty evidence; MD -1.04, 95% CI -1.86, -0.22; 1915 participants; eight studies; I2 = 4%, high-certainty evidence, respectively. The effect on systolic and diastolic blood pressure for men was MD -2.14, 95% CI -3.71, -0.59; 507 participants; five studies; I2 = 8%, moderate-certainty evidence; MD -1.99, 95% CI -3.25, -0.74; 507 participants; five studies; I2 = 41%, moderate-certainty evidence, respectively. The effect was consistent in both genders regardless of baseline calcium intake. The effect on systolic blood pressure was: MD -0.02, 95% CI -2.23, 2.20; 302 participants; 3 studies; I2 = 0%, moderate-certainty evidence with doses less than 1000 mg; MD -1.05, 95% CI -1.91, -0.19; 2488 participants; 9 studies; I2 = 0%, high-certainty evidence with doses 1000 to 1500 mg; and MD -2.79, 95% CI -4.71, 0.86; 350 participants; 7 studies; I2 = 0%, moderate-certainty evidence with doses more than 1500 mg. The effect on diastolic blood pressure was: MD -0.41, 95% CI -2.07, 1.25; 201 participants; 2 studies; I2 = 0, moderate-certainty evidence; MD -2.03, 95% CI -3.44, -0.62 ; 1017 participants; 8 studies; and MD -1.35, 95% CI -2.75, -0.05; 1821 participants; 8 studies; I2 = 51%, high-certainty evidence, respectively. None of the studies reported adverse events. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: An increase in calcium intake slightly reduces both systolic and diastolic blood pressure in normotensive people, particularly in young people, suggesting a role in the prevention of hypertension. The effect across multiple prespecified subgroups and a possible dose response effect reinforce this conclusion. Even small reductions in blood pressure could have important health implications for reducing vascular disease. A 2 mmHg lower systolic blood pressure is predicted to produce about 10% lower stroke mortality and about 7% lower mortality from ischaemic heart disease. There is a great need for adequately-powered clinical trials randomising young people. Subgroup analysis should involve basal calcium intake, age, sex, basal blood pressure, and body mass index. We also require assessment of side effects, optimal doses and the best strategy to improve calcium intake.

Vaccines to prevent COVID-19: A living systematic review with Trial Sequential Analysis and network meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 is rapidly spreading causing extensive burdens across the world. Effective vaccines to prevent COVID-19 are urgently needed. METHODS AND FINDINGS: Our objective was to assess the effectiveness and safety of COVID-19 vaccines through analyses of all currently available randomized clinical trials. We searched the databases CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and other sources from inception to June 17, 2021 for randomized clinical trials assessing vaccines for COVID-19. At least two independent reviewers screened studies, extracted data, and assessed risks of bias. We conducted meta-analyses, network meta-analyses, and Trial Sequential Analyses (TSA). Our primary outcomes included all-cause mortality, vaccine efficacy, and serious adverse events. We assessed the certainty of evidence with GRADE. We identified 46 trials; 35 trials randomizing 219 864 participants could be included in our analyses. Our meta-analyses showed that mRNA vaccines (efficacy, 95% [95% confidence interval (CI), 92% to 97%]; 71 514 participants; 3 trials; moderate certainty); inactivated vaccines (efficacy, 61% [95% CI, 52% to 68%]; 48 029 participants; 3 trials; moderate certainty); protein subunit vaccines (efficacy, 77% [95% CI, -5% to 95%]; 17 737 participants; 2 trials; low certainty); and viral vector vaccines (efficacy 68% [95% CI, 61% to 74%]; 71 401 participants; 5 trials; low certainty) prevented COVID-19. Viral vector vaccines decreased mortality (risk ratio, 0.25 [95% CI 0.09 to 0.67]; 67 563 participants; 3 trials, low certainty), but comparable data on inactivated, mRNA, and protein subunit vaccines were imprecise. None of the vaccines showed evidence of a difference on serious adverse events, but observational evidence suggested rare serious adverse events. All the vaccines increased the risk of non-serious adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: The evidence suggests that all the included vaccines are effective in preventing COVID-19. The mRNA vaccines seem most effective in preventing COVID-19, but viral vector vaccines seem most effective in reducing mortality. Further trials and longer follow-up are necessary to provide better insight into the safety profile of these vaccines.

Evidencia sobre las vacunas para COVID-19 en niñas, niños y adolescentes / Evidence on vaccines for COVID-19 in children and adolescents

En Argentina, tres de las vacunas contra el COVID-19 autorizadas por la entidad regulatoria local se aplican en menores de edad: la vacuna desarrollada por Sinopharm (BBIBP-CorV) para niños de 3 años o más, y las desarrolladas por Moderna (ARNm 1273) y Pfizer (BNT162b2) a partir de los 12 años. Dado que estas recomendaciones no coinciden exactamente con las emitidas por diferentes organismos internacionales y debido al corto plazo de seguimiento de los ensayos publicados, surgieron dudas fundamentalmente en relación a su seguridad. En este artículo, los autores sintetizan la evidencia disponible hasta el momento sobre las vacunas aplicadas en niños, niñas y adolescentes en nuestro país, basada en informes preliminares de ensayos clínicos y reportes de vigilancia epidemiológica. (AU)

In Argentina, three of the COVID-19 vaccines authorized by the local regulatory entity are applied to minors: the vaccine developed by Sinopharm (BBIBP-CorV) for children 3 years of age or older, and those developed by Moderna (RNAm1273) and Pfizer (BNT162b2) from the age of 12 and onwards. Given that these recommendations do not coincide exactly with those issued by different international organizations and due to the short follow-up period of the published trials, doubts arose fundamentally in relation to their safety. In this article, the authors summarize the evidence available to date on vaccines applied to children and adolescents in our country, based on preliminary studies of clinical trials and epidemiological surveillance reports. (AU)